Siege battles are weirdly bad for the defender

[Broetchenholer]

So, i just had to defend a siege of Uthelaim castle vs 2300 Battanians and as i was not in the position to fight them head on i decided to sneak into the castle, losing 80 people and then fight with the defenders. Obviously, not an easy job, the enemy brought quite the force, but one of the few times that i had to defend in such a situation. And now i understand why i can bully the AI when i siege them so heavily. Archers are insane against archers and when i siege someone, i can sit 200 archers in front of enemy walls any see how they slowly murder anyone. And the reason that works and the reason i lost more archers in the defense of that castle then in any battle before is, that the siege mechanism dpes not allow to just overwhelm the enemy with arrows. With level 1 walls, it does not matter if you have 100, 200 or 300 Archers to defend, the game will only allow ~50 archers to defend the walls. The rest is behind the walls waiting to be called up. And most of these archers are on the walls are just standing there in the open, waiting to get murderized. I get that sieges are gamified and it would be insanely frustrating to attack a castle if the game was trying to be more realistic, but i would prefer to have some risk as a player if i decide to not starve out a castle and do a assault on a not starved out opponent.

 

[archaicwarrior]

Yes, Game has been nerfed, helping attackers. To help game streamers who want to quickly and easily take settlements, so they can quickly takeover the world. Reality has been removed for streamer convenience.

 

[Penn]

I rarely lose as a defender. Just use the catapults on masses of enemies and they retreat and I win, taking hundreds of prisoners and 10-20 lords..

 

[saittam]

I rarely lose as a defender. Just use the catapults on masses of enemies and they retreat and I win, taking hundreds of prisoners and 10-20 lords..

Try it with RBM and you will loose more
I can´t remember when i last got to try and defend a settlement where i had atleast a chance of winning.

 

[JunKeteer]

They don't know how to tune it. As defender, it's almost 95% better to just autosim it. Autosim favors defender, in-battle sieges favor the attacker.

 

[Penn]

Try it with RBM and you will loose more
I can´t remember when i last got to try and defend a settlement where i had atleast a chance of winning.

Well, why would I do that?

 

[Sreaction]

My strategy for defending and attacking for siege is a different approach than OP. For defence, I let the AI control the archers, for the most part, and concentrate on placement of infantry forces at access points i.e. ladder, gates, prospective siege tower approach. Usually the catapults will destroy the siege engines then all that is left are the ladders and that is wildly easy to defend, one access point to concentrate on. I rarely get casualties in the double digits.

For attacks I attack castles and towns that are weak and easier to take. Even if there is a large number of defenders the task is relatively easy, build a battering ram, then build trebuchets, the trebuchets will destroy any enemy catapults and breach the wall or walls, so in essence you have two open access points at the beginning and a potential third with the gate. I don't rely on archers I rely on movement. Either, I overwhelm one of the breaches and go open the gate or just personally bypass the defenders in the castle open the gate and send my infantry through the main gate while the two other breaches are being assaulted. The enemy quickly crumbles and is routed. It does not always work out as planned but I am successful more often than I fail.

Also, since patch 1.2.9 I am selective about defending during a siege as the mechanics changed drastically since I last played. Usually I let an attacking force wear itself out then attack the siege camp. I havent had to defend against a large force like 2300 though.

 

[froggyluv]

and concentrate on placement of infantry forces at access points i.e. ladder, gates, prospective siege tower approach

You're able to separate and delegate to different Infantrys?

 

[Sreaction]

You're able to separate and delegate to different Infantrys?

At the beginning of most battles you can position you're troops, (it doesn't always allow you to in some cases the battle has already begun and you just go straight to the battle), then start the battle. All the units I position stay in place. If I need them to move somewhere I just order them, they are numbered 1,2,3...

 

[froggyluv]

At the beginning of most battles you can position you're troops, (it doesn't always allow you to in some cases the battle has already begun and you just go straight to the battle), then start the battle. All the units I position stay in place. If I need them to move somewhere I just order them, they are numbered 1,2,3...

Ok yeah i think i know what you mean -thats when Ive been hitting Auto-Deploy lol. Honestly I find defending sieges alot harder than warband -maybe my troops are too spread out. Ill need to try your system more

 

[Sreaction]

Ok yeah i think i know what you mean -thats when Ive been hitting Auto-Deploy lol. Honestly I find defending sieges alot harder than warband -maybe my troops are too spread out. Ill need to try your system more

Dont know if its obvious but all the infantry I use I have in a shield wall formation. Good defending against archers and for blocking the ladder access points. makes it almost impossible for the attackers to penetrate. Though if your highly outnumbered you can for sure get overwhelmed (not enough infantry to hold back the attackers).

 

[froggyluv]

Dont know if its obvious but all the infantry I use I have in a shield wall formation. Good defending against archers and for blocking the ladder access points. makes it almost impossible for the attackers to penetrate. Though if your highly outnumbered you can for sure get overwhelmed (not enough infantry to hold back the attackers).

Good tips -thanks

 

[SudianX]

I always felt like the sieges were overly bad for the defenders because of all of the forced militia units that have no armor . With the limited number of troops on the field at any time, every one of those tier 1 pushovers is one less real soldier able to spawn at the moment .

Spoiler: About those militia units...

People were comparing the highest number of troops personally killed in another thread and I could not participate: my highest count was an offensive siege where I slaughtered a bunch of unarmored militia with one-shots, half of the time they were just running away towards the keep

 

[JunKeteer]

I always felt like the sieges were overly bad for the defenders because of all of the forced militia units that have no armor . With the limited number of troops on the field at any time, every one of those tier 1 pushovers is one less real soldier able to spawn at the moment .

It's because the deployment and how it's scripted is still extremely janky. Takes so much to just line archers on battlements, split forces around, hope they actually listen (units always leak out to do those 'scripted' taskes), hope they target right things with sieges, you don't control militia, decorative objects completely block off certain deployments, etc.... You don't actually has as much agency in sieges.

 

[archaicwarrior]

It's because the deployment and how it's scripted is still extremely janky. Takes so much to just line archers on battlements, split forces around, hope they actually listen (units always leak out to do those 'scripted' taskes), hope they target right things with sieges, you don't control militia, decorative objects completely block off certain deployments, etc.... You don't actually has as much agency in sieges.

I find the Deployment for defenders quite janky, keeping hitting "Auto" deploy and soldiers go everywhere. Some groups are just militia, especially if you've set that up previously (I've setup group 8 as all trainee troops and companions so in field battles, they are safe in the rear)

But once the siege starts, the Defending AI is quite good, archers on the ground replace archers fallen on the walls, melee troops wait on the ground until towers get close then they run up to defend. Just sit back and watch.

 

[JunKeteer]

I find the Deployment for defenders quite janky, keeping hitting "Auto" deploy and soldiers go everywhere. Some groups are just militia, especially if you've set that up previously (I've setup group 8 as all trainee troops and companions so in field battles, they are safe in the rear)

But once the siege starts, the Defending AI is quite good, archers on the ground replace archers fallen on the walls, melee troops wait on the ground until towers get close then they run up to defend. Just sit back and watch.

Sure, sit back and watch, but to win these things effectively, you have to actually maneuver past the dumb 'default' settings/script played out. Otherwise, the alternative, it's drastically more efficient 95% to just autosim as the defender.

 

[froggyluv]

Overall i like alot of the Devs ideas for Sieges - i havent been in that many and wouldnt claim to say i really understand what all the "stages are". the previous games defenders just clogged the climbing lanes while archers murdered hundreds who were just waiting there turn. And by Archers i mean Player with a bow

 

[oświecony]

the manager should have his own elite unit defending the city and attacking whenever there is a weak point. when the city falls he should retreat to the fortress. without the ability to be controlled by the player. and defend yourself in the castle afterwards.

 

[Vaan2020]

Isnt it easier to auto resolve a siege as defender? I usually win battles against 2500 to 3000 enemies with a force of 800. Or is this changed i havent played in a while i just continued playing a few days ago. Grtz Vaan.